girlgeniusfandomcom-20200214-history
Talk:Chronology
In my intermediate conception, I suspected that each entry would be best as a multirow (and perhaps multicolored), but that* would require more CSS-fu than I have gained. I didn't want to quash Mnenyver's effort, but on the other hand I couldn't stomach leaving out fields, which she suggested. :::: *in a way that I felt wasn't embarrassing myself. :::Can you make a mock-up of what you want? I have extensive HTML development experience (which should carry over to Wikia styles), but the hard part is coming up with a good proposal. Make the mock-up anyway you want (ASCII art, paint, crayon), just try to show the idea. :::I agree with not dropping information (it might even he useful to add a "Location" attribute). Argadi 21:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC) ::::As for Location, it's generally fixed within a subsection, or if not, it might be reasonable to create wiki-only sub-subsections for pointing that out, since it generally lasts for a run of pages. (I've done something like that from its inception, anyway.) Also, this convention (wiki-only subsubsections) could be used when the "canonical" subsections have not yet been created. — Zarchne 00:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC) ::On the idea of it being my "baby", I'll just point out that the reason I sought out a GG wiki (and finding only this one, and it empty) was so that I could share the burden (and benefit) of maintaining this file (which started out, in good Unix tradition, as a record-per-line file). However, at the time I started it, for some reason I was not using the navigation selector on the GG page, which helps substantially, at least when they maintain it. ::Before I sign this part where I'm not commenting on the proposal below, I'd like to say that I'm not particulary fond of my ad-hoc single-character artwork-modifier "tags" ("sigils"?). The were okay in the original format, and maybe nothing better (more convenient for searching, or as convenient while more attractive) can be found, but it's certainly been on my mental list of "things someone should do something about" on this page. ::— Zarchne 09:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC) (Proposal:) The main page (this page) has an overview for each volume, with links to the page for each volume and to the cast list for each volume. Also, add a link to the Internal Chronology. Each volume page should have the symbol cheat sheet at the top (in a template so it is the same for all volumes), and links to the overall chronology, the previous volume, the next volume, and cast list for the volume. The cast list for each volume should link to the chronology for that volume. Argadi 08:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC) :Regarding a page-for-page tracking of the comic, I believe that was also a proposal of mine (you may be noticing a theme of "this guy gets far more ideas than he has resources to implement," here; believe me, it's not limited to this wiki), but the idea was that those would be Forum: pages, for in-depth back-and-forth analysis of the action and dialog, rather than (merely) a full (not even full, really) index as this was to serve. Zarchne 01:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC) I've put a very rough idea (maybe more) of what each row of the table could look like here: http://www.nyx.net/~mmicek/GG/bg.html I'm not sure if that's the best layout. Maybe colors are bad... I don't know how it would look to someone colorblind, but using style sheets is supposed to ameliorate that. OTOH, it could come out "angry fruit salad" even to the casual user. I guess a JS button to toggle colorizing style could be done, at least in a real site. In short, it's a proposal; not claiming it's a good one. — Zarchne 02:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC) :(Moving this out of infinite indents.) I don't like those proposals. They look like a Mondrian. Argadi 13:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC) ::You say that as if it's a bad thing. What are you, some kind of realist? :::I enjoy Mondrian in an art museum, but I don't think it belongs everywhere. Argadi 21:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC) :Below is an alternate proposal. I took the three blocks that are usually the longest and gave them separate lines. (I also think those three blocks don't need a label, but the remaining small blocks benefit from column titles.) Someone with an eye for color should take a look at it. Maybe have a color theme for columns (e.g., orange for "Names Used" header cell, and orange tint for names used box). The order is also adjustable: should quotes go after action? Argadi 13:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC) :Updated version below. Order changed and some color added. Note: This looks a little different in IE 6 and Firefox 3 due to different handling of empty table cells. (Which looks better? IE or Firefox?) Argadi 18:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC) ::Don't have anything negative to say, apart from the idea that it seems like the colors should be defined in a style sheet. I don't have easy access to IE. — Zarchne 20:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC) ::Actually, since I'm reediting this, I will say the dark blue 9fa7ff is a little too dark to contrast well with black text to my eye, and the red isn't as light as I'd like, either. — Zarchne 20:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC) :::I don't know how hard it would be to find and edit the style sheet for the wiki, but I will note that the current templates used for the chronologies will mean that each color will only appear once in the source code. (Assuming I can get the templates to do what I can do with raw HTML.) Anyone have any other comments on the colors or overall design? Is this a significant improvement over the current layout or should we brainstor other ideas? Argadi 21:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC) :I converted my example to use wikia table formatting instead of raw HTML and moved it to my sandbox. Firefox and IE are closer -- the differences are similar to the differences between IE and Firefox for the standard tables. Any opinions? Was a final decision made on the "tags" column? I don't care either way, but I will note it's hard to remove it later if it has any use at all. Argadi 13:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC) I thought I would attempt to actually do a bit of work in updating one of the actual pages of the wiki. It is no longer true that the canon consists of seven published volumes and a work in progress, since volume 8 proper has been completed. (The current Cinderella story may be published in a different printed volume, as the web order of the short stories and their print order is different.) But attempting to edit any of the chronology pages only presents the tabular material, not the prefatory material, the location of which for editing purposes is obscure. --Quadibloc 00:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC) : You're looking for Template:GG_Chronology_Introduction; the double-curly-brace items ( ) are all templates (a list of which it is possible to generate (see also Category:Templates, which is supposed to be redundant), but I forget how other than going to and selecting the "Templates:" namespace). ⚙Zarchne 01:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC) : Another way to find the templates used in a page is to edit the page and click "Show Preview". At the bottom is a handy list each template used to build the page (with links). : A different way to search for templates is to use the Advanced Search option and select which namespaces to search in. : (I could quibble and say that I haven't heard of the title for Volume VIII, and that without a title the volume isn't complete. But I'd never resort to arguments like that on this wiki.) Argadi 01:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC) Technical note A technical and historical note on the page id: the page id is in fact a date of the form YYYYMMDD (incidentally, one of several ISO standard date formats). For recent comics, the date corresponds to the date the comic was published to the web. However, comics well into the fourth volume — Vol . IV, p. 82 ✣ had been previously published on dead trees in comic books as well as collected volumes. This material was published to the web as Girl Genius 101, page-by-page, simultaneous with the completely new Girl Genius Advanced, when Studio Foglio leaped to webcomics in 2005. After GG101 caught up to Girl Genius Advanced in 2007, all the pages were moved to a new unified namespace. The GG Advanced pages kept their dates, but the GG101 comics were backdated as if they had been published on the same schedule since 2002. (Fortunately, or perhaps to some extent consequently, this wiki didn't really get going until after the changeover, and as long as Studio Foglio continues to use software that identifies each page solely by the same eight-digit date (common, but far from universal), we can adapt easily.) : This needs to be moved to the article's talk page. — m (talk) 05:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC) :: And so its been.--Rej ¤¤?